Hillary's Roles: Past, Present And Future

January 23, 1996|By Linda Bowles. Creators Syndicate.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is at center stage: She has begun a 10-city tour to publicize her book. She is also being investigated for abuses of power and obstructing justice. And The New York Times columnist William Safire has nominated her as "Ms. Congeniality" in Washington's political pageant.

With respect to her book, it advances the idea that the larger community is needed for raising children. If you are able to cut through the thick layers of syrupy sentimentality, you will discover at its core an appeal for compulsory collectivism. The book is entitled "It Takes a Village," but it would, more appropriately, have been called "It Takes a Commune."

The debate still rages over Safire's charges. Was he correct when he said, with just a soupcon of sadness, that Hillary is a "congenital liar"? Was it proper for him to say it?

It is possible that Safire, who voted for the Clintons, is doing penance for that folly by courageously saying what needs to be said. Should he have said it? Yes, if you agree that it is not healthy for the people of a great nation to walk around in a state of denial, unable to deal with the reality that their leaders may not be trusted.

Safire is an acknowledged master of language. When asked why he used so harsh a word as "liar," he replied, "It is simple English, and everybody understands." Sometimes, a writer cannot bring himself to euphemize around the mulberry bush.

The real debate is over his use of the word "congenital." Although some evidence accumulates that personality flaws may have genetic origins, the overwhelming and authoritative opinion is that such traits are acquired.

Can we put this to rest by agreeing that Hillary is a "natural" whose innate talent for deceit was honed by some of the best honers in the business: the elitist, leftist professors of the Ivy League?

In a recent CNN Gallup poll, only 32 percent of respondents could bring themselves to say that Hillary is telling the truth about Whitewater and related matters.

We are already beginning to hear limp, last-gasp defenses of the indefensible from consenting media groupies and high-priced political camp-followers: "So what if it's true? Who cares?" These questions echo the 1992 campaign mantra that "character is irrelevant."

But, admittedly, it is not fair to discuss the character flaws of Hillary out of context. She does not function independent of President Clinton. They are a team. He said, "If you vote for me, you get her as a bonus. . . . She is my closest adviser."

Hillary's $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in cattle futures can only be understood as a savvy, lawyerly ruse to make a "gift" look innocent. This clever transfer of money had little to do with Hillary per se; it was leveraged by her husband's political power.

The Clintons are joined at the pocketbook. The proceeds from Cattlegate went into their joint account.

Most of the media are off target. The president, not his wife, is responsible for what happens in the White House. Yet, in his news conference, he did not say, "I am responsible for Travelgate." He gave his wife a character reference and said she would do whatever was necessary to defend herself.

This brings us to the real issue. Now that the bloom is off Hillary, perhaps we can face the truth that it is totally inappropriate and foolish for the first lady to wield her husband's power and/or have a major and unaccountable role in the running of the government.

What do you suppose would happen if the president of IBM were dumb enough to ask his wife to help him run the company? And what if she were dumb enough to accept and went down to the corporate offices and started throwing her weight around?

How do you tell a boss, on whom your paycheck and career depend, that his wife is not qualified? How do you complain that she is in the way? How do you object to what she is doing? How free are you to challenge her decisions?

In summary, it's obvious that Hillary's talent is too thin for the job of "powerful person." This is a reality about which avid feminists are in denial. More than that, they are crushed. Sorry, girls. It's over.